REPORT
OF
THE PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
HONOLULU, HAWAII
JUNE, 7-10, 1971
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 201+60
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
August 16, 1971
Water Pollution
Control
Advisory Board
Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 201*60
Dear Mr. Administrator;
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board met
June 7-10, 1971» in the State of Hawaii at the invitation of the
Honorable John A. Burns, Governor. It was the Board's first visit
to Hawaii since 1963* The purpose of the Board's meeting was to
review progress to abate water pollution from industry, municipal-
ities and Federal installations since the 1963 meeting and to focus
attention on existing problems in the State.
Acting as Chairman for the meeting was Mr. Gary H. Baise,
Assistant to the Administrator, EPA. Mr. Louis B. Clapper was
designated as Vice Chairman. Board members present were: Dr. Mel-
bourne R. Carriker; Mr. William D. Farr; Mr. Ray W. Ferguson;
Dr. Wallace W. Harvey, Jr.; Mr. Ralph W. Kittle; Mr. Stuart M. Long;
Mr. Parker E. Miller; Mrs. Samuel Rome.
After introduction of guests, Mr. Baise called on Mr. Paul
DeFalco, Jr., EPA Interim1 Regional Coordinator, Region IX to brief
the Board on pollution problems in Hawaii prior to the beginning of
tours for the Board to view firsthand various pollution areas on
the Islands. Mr. DeFalco presented a series of slides illustrating
Hawaii's major problems. He pointed out that Hawaii's problems
differ from those of mainland states in that Hawaii's problems are
of its own creation. There is no interstate transport of pollution
through the air and water.
Inspection Tour, Island of Oahu
On June 7» the Board made an inspection tour of the Island of
Oahu including Pearl Harbor. Pollution problems, were viewed from
the lookouts at Punchbowl and Nuuanu Pali, and from two Marine Corps
heliocopters. The Board viewed raw sewage being discharged from
Honolulu's 50 million-gallon-per-day outfall off Sand Island, a
short distance from the Honolulu shoreline and the beaches of Wai-
kiki; sedimentation and soil erosion problems in Eaneohe Bay; and
oil and sewage miring with silt in Pearl Harbor.
-------
The Board was also given a briefing by Capt. L.G. Timberlake,
who described the Navy's model program to clean up Pearl Harbor.
The Army, Davy and Mr Force have cooperated in the construction
of a tri-service sewage treatment plant that already has removed
much of the raw sewage that had been dumped into the harbor. But
much remains to be done, Capt. Timberlake said, as he showed slides
of the forms of pollution entering the harbor. The pollution in-
cludes silt and other runoff from nearby agricultural and urban
lands, as well as oil pollution from the Navy's own facilities.
The Pearl Harbor program is an effort to eliminate all sources of
water, air, land and noise pollution. The Navy is programming its
own control and working on a cooperative effort with other Federal
agencies, the City and the State to eliminate pollution sources over
which the Navy h*m no control.
At the end of the day, Chairman Baise stated that the pollution
problems on Oahu are serious and that City and State officials must
act and act quickly to preserve a clean environment. Mr. Baise also
said he was impressed that the military is recognizing its respon-
sibilities .
Inspection Tour. Island of Hawaii
On June,8, the Board traveled by plane to Hilo, Island of Hawaii
to inspect waste disposal systems and practices by sugar mills and
to review clean-up plans and progress by the sugar industry. The
primary pollution problem emanating from the sugar industry is the
dumping of mud, silt and cane trash ;from sugar cane washing opera-
tions into the ocean. This is affecting beaches, streams, fishing
grounds and coral reefs throughout the State.
Two sugar companies, C. Brewer & Co. and Theodore H. Davis &
Co., Ltd., presented their clean-up plans to the Board. Mr. William
B. Case, Vice President, C. Brewer & Co., and Mr. Francis S. Morgan,
Executive in Charge of Sugar Operations, Theodore H. Davis & CO.,
addressed the Board. Their plan would eliminate all trash and
bagasse from their Hamakua Coast mills by late 1973» a&cl clean up
all.coastal discharges by 1976. These timetables were negotiated
and agreement reached between the State and Island of Hawaii sugar
companies. Nevertheless, Chairman Baise and other Board members
expressed concern that the timetables appeared to be overlong and
may have to be accelerated.
Following these discussions, the Board inspected "dry cleaning"
operations for washing cane at the Paauhau Sugar Mill. The Paauhau
mill has the state's only "dry cleaner". The Board also inspected
land reclamation practices of the Puna Sugar Company. These reclaimed
lands are then used for sugar growing and harvesting.
The Board concluded its visit by touring the volcano area and
returned by air to Honolulu at 1\ 00 PM.
-------
Public Meeting
The Board's hearings on water pollution problems in the State
of Hawaii were held in the Sheraton-Waifri Tri Hotel on June 9, 8:30 AM
to 5OO IM and from 8:00 EM to 11:30 PM. The participants represented
municipal, county and State government; Federal agencies; industry,
conservation, civic and other citizen groups having interest in the
environment; and private citizens.
Chairman Baise in opening the meeting introduced the Board
members and explained the Board's legislative background, function and
purpose, including its holding of meetings from time to time in var-
ious parts of the country to focus public attention upon regional
Water pollution problems. Mr. Baise also introduced Mrs. Patsy Chun,
a representative of Senator Hiram Fong's office. Mrs. Chun will
be reporting the activities of the Board to Senator Fong.
Because of the great number of statements presented it has not
been possible to include summaries of all of them in this report.
However, following are highlights from a selected number of state-
ments, those which generated the most discussion by the Board mem-
bers.
Honorable John A. Burns, Governor of Hawaii
Governor Burns extended a warm welcome to the Board and ex-
pressed appreciation for its visit to Hawaii. The Governor indicated
that in his judgement the general environment in Hawaii is a good one.
The State's approach to controlling environmental pollution is
three-fold:
— To adopt environmental standards which will preserve
the existing quality of water, land and air where the
quality is high and improve it where it is below standard.
— To develop programs designed to prevent new forms of
degrading pollution from eroding the environment.
— To continue leadership in an educational movement so
that all citizens are made conscious of their contribution
to pollution and to impress upon all the common goal of im-
proving and making this a socially desirable habit.
The Governor recently established the Office of Environmental
Quality Control, which has been deliberately placed in the Executive
Office because of the Governor's desire that its functions receive
immediate attention and the full thrust of executive sanction in its
vital mission. The Environmental Quality Control Office is respon-
sible for coordinating all the State's wide range of environmental
functions and also to take the longer view in assessing programs
- 3 -
-------
that may seem less relevant today but which, may impinge more directly
on environmental factors tomorrow.
The Governor seeks to bring all the various state elements
working together to achieve higher environmental standards for
Hawaii.
Governor Burns in closing indicated that the State was
privileged and honored by the Board's visit and pledged his assis-
tance in any way possible.
Mr. Russell Freeman. Director, EPA Pacific Islands Basin Office
Mr. Freeman presented a summary of a DHEW report on water pollu-
tion by the sugar industry that was developed in response to the
Board's Hawaii meeting in 1963. In that meeting, the Board pointed
out the importance of pollution-free water for tourism and recreation
and cautioned the sugar and pineapple industries about their pollution
of Hawaii's waters.
Following the Board's report, the Hawaii Department of Health
commissioned the study of the Hawaii sugar industry which would hope-
fully lead to a reduction or elimination of the pollution. Hawaii
had no water quality standards as the study began, but State and
Federal water quality standards were adopted and approved before the
report was completed. The report found the sugar industry in viola-
tion of several of the water quality standards and recommended that
remedial steps be taken.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
Information about natural sedimentation and erosion along the
shoreline is scanty. One study was made of the extent of siltation
on the ocean bottom. In this study, sediment was covering and
choking our coral near a mill outfall on Hawaii. Based on limited
surveys in this study, fish populations were reduced in the vicinity
of the mill discharge. Unfortunately, the scope of the study was
limited and the results were indefinite.
Rear Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, Commandant, Fourteenth Naval District,
Department of Defense
The military community in Oahu is working in support of the
mandate set forth in Presidential Executive Order 11507 and the
deadline of 31 December 1972 which it establishes for having pollution
abatement projects completed or underway. The major portion of the
military's water pollution control projects already have corrective
action underway and many are well on their way toward completion.
Admiral Hayward described the military services' water pollution
-------
control programs, individually, starting with the Mr Force. Domes-
tic sewage,: subterranean oil, and industrial wastes are the primary
offenders involved.
The Mr Force has implemented a continuing program (1) to
identify, evaluate, and eliminate problem areas in the existing fa-
cilities, (2) to institute pollution abatement measures in future
construction, and (3) to promote closer coordination with other
Federal, municipal, and state environmental control agencies.
Admiral Hayward said initial results of the program have been
satisfying, and problem areas identified are being corrected or
programmed for future correction. Admiral Hayward detailed the
progress the Mr Force has made in cleaning up fuel contamination
and industrial wastes. Total expenditure required to accomplish Air
Force water pollution abatement programs to date is $1,71*8,000.
The Army's primary water pollution problem is domestic sewage
generated in the Schofield Barracks area and Helemano Military Reser-
vation (both located in Central Oahu) and the Fort Shafter and Trip-
ler General Hospital area near Honolulu, The status of corrective
actions for these facilities is as follows:
The construction of secondary treatment facilities for the exis-
ting Schofield Barracks sewage treatment plant is scheduled to com-
mence in August of this year, pending approval by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the State Department of Health. The Fort Shafter-
Tripler Hospital sewage which is now discharged untreated through
an ocean outfall at Sand Island, will in the future receive treat-
ment and disposal services from proposed City and County facilities
to be built on Sand Island.
The construction of secondary treatment facilities of the Hele-
mano sewage treatment plant has been funded and is scheduled to com-
mence in October of this year. Preliminary coordination with the
Environmental Protection Agency has been accomplished.
Control measures on other pollution sources have also been im-
plemented. For example, a continuing surveillance program is being
conducted on a weekly basis on all Army potable water supplies and
systems, swimming pools, and beaches. Chemical and bacteriological
analyses are undertaken to insure that the water is free of contamin-
ants and meets all applicable standards. About $5»000,000 will have
been expended or programmed by the Army on water pollution abatement
projects by the end of Fiscal Year 1972.
The Navy -and'Marine Corps figure predominately in the water pol-
lution abatement program for Oahu due to the number, variety, location
and industrial orientation of their shore facilities. Navy ships with
their oily wastes and waste water discharges add to this problem. The
-5 -
-------
major Navy water pollution control projects related to shore facili-
ties have "been completed or are now under construction. Upon com-
pletion of a number of active contracts totaling $9«5 million by
mid-calendar year 1972, all Naval activities in the State will
either be connected to a City and County treatment plant or will
be receiving secondary level treatment in Navy facilities, with
two exceptions—Iroquois Point Housing areas on Oahu and the PMRF
on Eauai. A $320,000 sewage treatment project is presently in the
IT 72 Navy military construction program to correct the situation
on Kauai. An agreement in principal has been reached with City
officials regarding the Iroquois Point discharges. However, timing
is a problem as the Honouliuli treatment plant operation construction
is not projected until 1975* While the secondary treatment facility
at MCAS Kaneohe meets current standards, a recent upgrading of water
classification standards for certain Kaneohe Bay areas will require
elimination of the Bay outfall and diversion to an ocean outfall
on the Kailua Bay side of the peninsula. Agreement has been
reached in principle with City and County officials for a military
tie-in at MCAS Kaneohe to the City's proposed ocean outfall. The
City and County timetable for the outfall construction starts in
early 1973.
The termination of the Fleet Fire Fighting School operation,
more strict controls of ships' fueling and oily waste water disposal,
and recent, extensive shoreline cleanup efforts are indications of the
Navy's efforts to regulate every phase of Navy pollutants.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
At the present time, Navy ships are not allowed to discharge
oily wastes at all, and Admiral Hayward thought that the long-term
practice would probably be to install sewage treatment plants into
ships rather than using shore facilities. Dock-side facilities, in
Admiral Hayward's opinion, would probably prove too costly to build
and operate.
Colonel Roy A. Sanders, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
Honolulu District Engineer
Colonel Sanders is responsible for administering the Federal
Permit Program in Hawaii, Guam and Samoa, under the Refuse Act of
1899' He said the cooperation between the Hawaii State Department
of Health, the Governor's Office of Environmental Quality Control
and the local EPA office in developing the Permit Program had been
outstanding. However, he recommended more flexibility in the
application of water quality standards.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
Any permit applications filed with the State Health Department
- 6 -
-------
are also considered by the Corps for compliance with Federal
requirements. Many of the state permits do not have enough infor-
mation for the Federal forms.
The question of placing responsibility for the Permit Program
with the Corps of Engineers was briefly discussed. Colonel Sanders
said that the Corps has the authorized positions to process the
permits, but they have been unable to recruit. He favored the
retention of the permit processing by the Corps of Engineers rather
than transferring it to EPA, because many of the permit requests cross ,
lines and the Corps is experienced with permit systems since it
has its own related to navigation and construction in navigable wa-
ters. Colonel Sanders said the Corps of Engineers issues or denies
its permits solely on the recommendations of the State Department
of Health and EPA.
Mayor Frank F. Fasi, City and County of Honolulu
The City and County of Honolulu is engaged in a comprehensive
water quality program with special emphasis on waste disposal. While
the scope of the program is island-wide, the highest priority is
being given to the Honolulu-Pearl Harbor area since the City of Hono-
lulu discharges 55 nigd of raw sewage into the ocean. The City is
planning construction of a primary sewage treatment plant to be located
on Sand Island at the mouth of Honolulu Harbor. Design is underway
and construction will be completed hopefully by November 1973* There
has been criticism on the decision for a primary plant as opposed to
secondary. However, based on extensive data collection and on ex-
pert opinion it was demonstrated that apart from financial savings,
a primary plant with a long outfall is better than a secondary plant
with a shorter outfall.
The City has come up with preliminary plans for an Oahu-wide
program of wastewater treatment. However, the total cost of imple-
menting such a system would range near $265 million over a ^0-yeax
period, with $150 million of that amount needed in the next 10 years;
The State's share of the funding during this period will be $37
million. Honolulu residents are already over-taxed and there aren't
many new sources of tax revenue left. More Federal funds are needed.
In conclusion Mayor Fasi made the following observations and
suggestions:
— Give us the money and tell us to do the job, but
not.how to do it.
— Give us the benefit of expert technical knowledge
accumulated by the Federal Government.
— Federal funds, once appropriated, should be released
- 7 -
-------
promptly and without strings.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
Honolulu needs more funds for construction of necessary sewage
treatment plants. It was agreed that the industry causing most
of the pollution should bear most of the cost of a surcharge for
use of the treatment plants. Hawaii's sugar industry has its own :
facilities, and the pineapple industry cannot bear the entire cost.
An additional tax on hotel rooms is not favored by the Governor
and legislature. Since tourism is the third-largest industry in
Hawaii it would be logical for it to bear a sizeable portion of the
sewage treatment costs.
Mr. E.M. Wood, Assistant Division Engineer, Department of Trans-
portation, Federal Highway Administration
The FHWA. has issued guidelines outlining procedures for
maintaining water quality and reduction of possible soil erosion
occurring during and following highway construction, and for the
draining of storm water from Federal-aid and direct Federal highway
construction;projects. Since January 1, 196?» Federal-aid plans,
specifications, and estimates must contain promises to keep pollu-
tion of all waters by highway construction to a minimum. To assure
compliance, all states were requested to review their existing construc-
tion specifications and incorporate any necessary changes to accomplish
the objective and intent of the guidelines.
Dr. Walter B. Quisenberry, Director of Health, State of Hawaii
The Department of Health is responsible for the control of
any pollution which is harmful, detrimental or injurious to our
public water supplies, fish and aquatic life, wildlife, or adversely
affects recreational, agricultural, industrial or other legitimate
uses of water.
Since the adoption of water quality standards in March 1968,
there have been many encouraging signs of progress toward pollution
abatement. More effective programs are now underway in research, con-
struction, water quality surveillance and in development of compre-
hensive shoreline planning in controlling pollution., The public too
has become more responsive to water pollution abatement and has
responded in a cooperative fight for clean water.
Some of the major sources of pollution of Hawaii's waters are
municipal sewage and wastes from agricultural and industrial opera-
tions. There are presently still some gaps in the control efforts
and in the activities of industry. A major obstacle is the large
backlog of needed municipal and industrial waste treatment works.
- 8 -
-------
The Department of Health's program goals for water pollution
abatement for the next five years will accomplish the preservation
of all State waters and the upgrading of critical water areas.
These program goals are:
1. Treatment or elimination of all raw sewage discharges;
•2. Stringent control of soil runoff;
3« Elimination of the dumping of municipal solid waste,
industrial trash and bagasse into State waters; and
k- Removal of waste discharges from State Class AA waters.
The greater part of Honolulu's sewage is discharged without
treatment off Sand Island. It is expected that construction will
begin on the Sand Island sewage treatment plant in 1972.
There are other major municipal outlets which at present
continue to discharge untreated sewage into State waters. These
include outlets located at Waipahu (Oahu), Kahului (Maui), Wailuku
(Maui), Paia (Maui), Lahaina (Maui), and Port Allen (Kauai). Plans
have already been implemented by the respective county governments
to construct facilities to treat these discharges.
Twenty-two private sugar plantation camps located on the Counties
of Hawaii, Maui and Kauai are also discharging untreated sewage into
State waters. Sugar industry representatives are negotiating with
the State regarding the deadlines imposed by the Department of Health
for treating these discharges, but it is hoped that many of these
discharges will be corrected during this coming fiscal year.
Agreements are being developed between the Departments of Health
and Transportation to resolve the problem of vessel discharge of
untreated sewage.
Soil erosion and sediment have caused considerable degradation
to Hawaii's coastal waters. Silt and soil are also filling some
estuaries and may be affecting coral and other marine life. Kaneohe
Bay and Pearl Harbor are two large water areas which are afflicted
by such deposits.
Control programs for soil runoff from existing and new land
developments have been implemented. At the present time, all developers.
are required to file an application for land development and to submit '
satisfactory plans for control of erosion with the Department of Health.
Immediate planting of slopes with grass is a minimum requirement for
approval of land construction.
-------
The agricultural Industries are also required to look into
more efficient control of soil runoff from irrigation tail waters
and industrial process waters. Settling ponds, impoundments and
mechanical clarifiers are some of the mechanisms used to complement
sound soil conservation practices.
The discharge of trash and floating materials into State waters
is not compatible with the Department of Health's water pollution
abatement efforts. Sugar trash and bagasse are presently being dis-
charged by eight coastal Sugar plantations on the island of Hawaii.
Negotiations are currently underway to arrive at a mutually satis-
factory schedule of actions by the sugar industry to control this
source of water pollution.
Municipal trash and refuse are also presently being discharged
into coastal waters from six dump sites located on the Island of
Hawaii. Pour of these sites are private dumps owned by sugar com-
panies, while two ocean dumps are operated by the County of Hawaii.
It is the Department of Health's goal to eliminate all ocean dump
discharge during the coming fiscal year.
The fourth goal adopted by the Department of Health is the re-
moval and control of waste discharges into Class AA water areas.
The uses to be protected in this class of waters are oceanographic
research, propagation of shell fish and marine life, conservation
of coral reefs and wilderness areas and aesthetic enjoyment.
It is the State's objective that these waters remain in as
nearly their natural pristine state as possible with an absolute
minimum of pollution from any source.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
A question was raised concerning the penalties under Hawaii's
law for discharging without a permit. Dr. Quisenberry called on
Mr. Thomas Pico, Deputy Attorney Genral, for response to this
question. Mr. Pico explained that the penalty is a $500 fine. It
is a civil fine and there is no criminal fine. The Attorney Gen-
eral is the only one who can bring suit under Hawaii's law. Two
actions have been initiated under the State's water quality standards,
One resulted in a court order to remove a pineapple waste dischargeo:
from the canal into which it was discharging. However, the problem
was not solved since the canal was hooked up to the County of Kanai
sewer line which was discharging into the ocean. The other action
was against a local meat packing company and is still in court.
Dr. Doak C. Cox, Director of the Environmental Quality Center,
University of Hawaii
Dr. Cox was primarily concerned with an account in the morning
- 10 -
-------
newspaper, which said the decision to accept the sugar industry's
cleanup timetable was partially based on the University's inability '
to prove environmental damage from trash and bagasse discharge into
the ocean.
Dr. Cox said the statement in the paper was misleading, because
the University Environmental Center had never been asked for an
evaluation of the damage. However, he supported the industry's pro-
posals, saying that three more years of pollution could not do much
in an area where thirty years of pollution had already accumulated,
and he rejected the proposed interim solution because the "social
cost" would be too high. He also opposed the implementation of a
two-year plan on the grounds that it would be too expensive, both
socially and economically.
Mr. Howard Nakamura, Director of Planning. County of Maui
Mr. Nakamura represented Mayor Elmer Cravalho who was not
able to appear due to a previous commitment.
The County of Maui is presently making a transition from an
agriculturally-oriented economy, to one which is more balanced and
diversified. This includes a substantial reliance on tourism so
the County is vitally concerned that an'effective program to abate
water pollution is established.
i
Maul's major problems include discharge of untreated, raw
sewage into the ocean at several points along the shoreline, and silting'
and discoloration along the shore created by storm runoff.
With the help of Federal grants from HUD and EPA the highest
priorities have been placed on sewer projects, as follows: Eauna-
kakai, Molokai; Lanai City, Lanai; Wailuku-Eahului; Kihei and
Lahaina. All of the above projects are in either the design or
construction stage.
In addition, the County is in the final stages of completing
a comprehensive, county-wide, Sewer, Water and Drainage General
Plan. The County's Besource Conservation and Development Program
was recently approved by the Department of Agriculture. This program
should be of substantial assistance in implementing projects to
control storm runoff.
To illustrate the County's degree of commitment to abate all
forms of water pollution, Mr. Nakamura presented the following
information:
The County's proposed Capital Improvement Plan for 1971-72
totals $11,192,000. Of this amount, approximately 75$ is
earmarked for sewer projects. Within recent months, the
- 11 -
-------
County of Maul floated a $1i| million bond issue. Of ,
this amount, $9,760,000 is set aside for use in sewer
projects.
In closing, Mr. Nakamura raised two areas that the County
feels should receive additional consideration by the Federal Govern-
ment: -
1. It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with
the different requirements and with the constant changes
in State and Federal water pollution programs. The
County of Maul urges that requirements be mutually agreed
upon, and certified by a central certifying system which
would be acceptable tor .all granting agencies.
2. The County of Maul has made a substantial financial com-
mitment to controlling water pollution, both in terms
of the 1971-72 GIF budget and the six-year CIP program.
The State of Hawaii, which is moving over to a two-year
budgeting system, has likewise appropriated substantial
portions of the matching funds required for implementa-
tion of construction projects. However, the bulk of these
projects cannot be completed without a substantial por-
tion of the funding coming from the Federal Government.
The County suggests that some sort of priority system
or program of funding be clearly established on a State-
wide basis, in order that the State and County govern-
ments can more wisely program their appropriations and
expenditures. If the Federal!matching share for a
specific project will not be available for three or four
years, it would be in the best interests of the community
if the Countyvcould free funds for some other needed
project.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
In discussing Maui's funding for environmental programs, it
was pointed out that the much wealthier area of Honolulu was having
a hard time finding money. Mr. Nakamura was questioned about Maui's
willingness to support funding for environmental programs that are
much more extensive and costly than those of the much wealthier
Honolulu. He said that Maui's success was due to a combination of
the Administration, the legislative body and community attitudes;
particularly a community willingness to float the $11* million bonds.
Mr. Tony Hodges. President, Life of the Land
Mr. Hodges stated that the State of Hawaii has not enforced,
is not enforcing, and will not enforce the water quality standards,
and the standards will not be enforced until the Federal Government
intervenes. Mr. Hodges then proceeded to discuss a number of ex-
amples to illustrate his points.
- 12 -
-------
Mr. Hodges brought suit against the Director of the Department
of Health and the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii to compel
them to enforce the water quality standards. The action was even-
tually dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence. The case is
presently being appealed to the State Supreme Court.
As evidence that the State is not enforcing the water quality
standards, Mr. Hodges indicated that permits were being granted when
the application did not even provide the amount of wastes being dis-
charged, and that prosecution would be impossible without this
information. He also mentioned that the time schedules contained
in the implementation plan of the water quality standards have not
and are not being met.
With regard to future enforcement Mr. Hodges cited a "secret"
meeting held on June 3» 1971> between the State and the sugar industry
wherein Lt. Governor Ariyoshi allegedly informed all those present
that:
1. Contested hearings requested by polluters whose permits
were being denied or revoked will not be held.
2. There would be no prosecution or court action against
polluters.
3. If the Federal Government attempted to bring action
against sugar polluters, then the sugar companies and
the State would join forces against such an attempt.
Mr. Hodges then listed a number of actions that the Board and
EPA can take to attack water pollution problems in all states, but
.that are particularly applicable to Hawaii. A partial list of these
recommendations is as follows:
1. Give citizens the right to sue officials to compel
enforcement of anti-pollution laws. Seek such legis-
lation.
2. Create, by legislation, a National Environmental Defense
Fund to pay the costs of suits in which a citizen brings
a suit on behalf of the environment. Any monies recovered
from such a suit would be returned to the fund,
3- Make all EPA files open to the public. Severely restrict
the evasive action of public servants who use inter-office
memoranda, etc., to get around the Freedom of Information
Act.
U« Make all state files (where the agency receives EPA support)
open to the public.
- 13 -
-------
5. Seek legislation to provide bounties in all anti-pollution
laws.
6. Seek legislation to make all fines (for violation of anti-
pollution laws) equal to 1/365 of the annual gross of the
parent company or the violating company, whichever is
greater. This fine would be applied for each day of
violation, .find it would help polluters to quickly see
that it is far cheaper to clean up than to pollute.
Mr. Hodges concluded by suggesting specific legal action that
can be taken:
1. Violators of the time schedules set forth in the water
quality standards should be taken to court. This can be
done without the pollution being classified as interstate.
Judgments should be achieved against every violator. EPA,
the polluters and the state would then work out the earliest
possible dates for compliance, with such dates becoming
part of the court order.
2. A tourist swimming in polluted waters in Hawaii makes the
pollution interstate. EPA should pursue this concept so
that Hawaii can have some Federal enforcement action.
Mr. J. Davitt McAteer, Ralph Nader Organization, Hawaii Representative
Mr. McAteer discussed the decline of water quality in the
state and placed the primary burden of guilt upon the State govern-
ment and its regulatory agencies. He also lamented the lack of
progress since the 19&3 Board meeting in Hawaii and the lack of Feder-
al action.
1
Mr. McAteer concluded with several recommendations:
— That the Governor call for a Federal Enforcement
Conference under Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
— That the Board urge the Governor to call the Enforcement
Conference.
— That the EPA call an Enforcement Conference under Section
10 (d) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
if the Governor fails to call one.
— The power of the EPA should be broadened by Federal
legislation beyond the current interstate water author-
ity, so that more of Hawaii is under EPA protection.
-------
Sophie Ann Aoki, SCOPE (Student Council on Pollution and the
Environment)
Miss Aoki expressed hope that the Board's visit would instigate
action and that they would recommend forceful measures in those
areas that the State has moved too slowly or not at all. She asked
for EPA's support in the following areas:
1. Comprehensive re-evaluation of Federal involvement in
Hawaii's sugar industry.
NOTE: Sugar is the third most important economic activ-
ity in the State, is supported by Federal subsidies,
and is one of the major State polluters. Miss Aoki
recommended that instead of automatically subsi-
dizing sugar as the Governor has done recently in
approving State tax reliefs, that the Federal
government supply incentive through the tax struc-
ture and monetary grants so that sugar lands may
be converted to diversified agricultural use.
2. All research and development funds granted by EPA require
an implementation schedule to be adhered to when the re-
search is completed, if appropriate.
3. EPA guidelines be clearly established and adhered to, to
prevent the misuse of political influence and arbitrary
administrative discretion in the direction of programs for
research and enforcement.
U> That Federal support be given to the local and regional
office of the EPA so that they may assume a stronger position.
£. That the Board support the proposed legislation that would
authorize EPA to use Federal laws without the prior consent
of the governor of a state for the enforcement of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
6. That a progress report and an overall evaluation of the
Board's meeting be prepared and copies made' available to
the public.
Mr. John C. Brogan, President of the Hawaii Hotel Association
Mr. Brogan is concerned about the delay in the construction of
Honolulu's sewage treatment plants, the rejuvenation of recreational
waters and the disposal of waste from sugar refining operations.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
-------
The Hotel Association has pushed for the completion of the
Honolulu sewage treatment plant, but it is not supporting the
surcharge to help pay for it.
There was some discussion about the practice of creating
beaches by moving sand from one area to another and the decrease
in tourism resulting from water pollution. The occupancy rate
of the Waikiki Hotels is declining and the Hotel Association would
like Hawaii's clean environemnt preserved, aside from all else,
as a good business practice.
Mr. Thomas M. Pico, Jr., Deputy State Attorney General
Mr. Pico accused Governor Burns of abandoning the enforce-
ment of pollution control laws against the sugar industry and an-
nounced that he was resigning. In his testimony, Mr. Pico indicated
that the present State Administration is not interested in enforcing
water pollution laws and that the State has brought only two suits
to enforce the law, against relatively insignificant polluters. One
of those suits was rendered ineffective because it resulted in
simply changing the location of discharge.
Mr. Pico was present at the negotiations between the State
and sugar industry officials to solve the Hamakua Coast pollution
problem. Mr. Pico accused ,the State of indicating to the sugar com-
panies that they would not be prosecuted for pollution violations,
and of allowing the sugar companies to dictate the terms of the
settlement.
Mr. Pico stated that State Director of Health, Dr. Walter
Quisenberry, was interested in moving toward holding contested hearings
but that Governor Burns had blocked Dr. Quisenberry's efforts. Mr.
Pico maintained that if the contested hearings had been allowed
to continue they could have determined whether the plans agreed upon
were the most feasible.
Ensuing discussion brought out the following:
Mr. Pico had been counsel for the State Department of Health
since 19^9> and counsel to the Office of Environmental Quality since
its establishment.
During the Governor's recent meeting with the sugar people,
their statements were accepted at face value. At lower levels
of the negotiations, Mr. Pico said financial statements were re-
quested from the Hamakua Plantation Company to prove that it
was not feasible to adopt an alternative or inct/erim solution.
The data was submitted and analyzed by a professor at the Uni-
versity but the data was not sufficient to make a determina-
tion. Mr. Pico said the settlement plan had been submitted to
the Department of Health some time ago, and the Department had rejected
- 16 -
-------
it until it could be proven to "be the "best plan. During the
Governor's meeting there were no serious attempts at negotiation,
particularly after the statement that the State would not require
contested hearings and it would not pursue court action.
The discharge permits are only to be issued when in the
public interest. If the complete shutdown of the mills would
result from the acceleration of the clean-up plans, it might well
be in the public interest to let the mills adopt the three-year
plan. However, Mr. Fico said that as a lawyer, he thought any
violation of the law should be stopped as soon as possible, even
if it is uneconomical.
Me. Leroy G. Rathburn, Acting Manager and Chief tfagineer of the
Board of Water Supply
Mr. Eathburn said his group supported the principal of util-
izing treated waste water as an alternate or supplemental source <
for Oahu's future water requirements. However, the use of sewage
effluent for irrigation is premature because of the absence of
reliable data on possible adverse effects on basal water quality.
In the interim he suggested the continued disposal of properly
treated effluent into nearby streams or the transport of the effluent
into areas with caprock formations for use in irrigation.
Mr. Eathburn recommended that any proposed actions using efflu-
ent in other irrigation areas be delayed pending a study on the sub-
ject by the Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii,
which would be completed in three to five years.
Mr. Hannibal Tavares, Public Affairs Coordinator, Hawaii Sugar
Planters' Association
Mr. Tavares rebutted prior speakers who had charged that the
sugar industry was in violation of the law. He said that all of the
sugar companies in his association (20) applied for discharge permits
within the required ninety days. Some of the companies received per-
mits, while others remained under study. After the Director of the
State Health Department notified the companies that he intended to
revoke or deny the permits, all of the companies petitioned for the
contested hearings to which they were legally entitled. :
Mr. Tavares said the Director's chief objection was to the
industry's timetables, most of which extended from one to three
years, while the State provided a ma-H mum of five years for a permit
to be issued.
At the industry's meeting with the Governor, Mr. Tavares said
Governor Burns set a deadline for the industry to meet, and if the
industry disagrees they revert to the contested hearings.
- 17 -
-------
Mr. Tavares said that Mr. Pico was mistaken in saying that the
Governor did not intend to enforce the law; the Lt. Governor said
that the executive branch hoped that the differences could be re-
solved without going to contested hearings or time consuming liti-
gation. The Governor's deadline did not pertain to any mills other
than those on Hilo, so that some contested hearings would be held.
In conclusion, Mr. Tavares stressed that the sugar industry ,
was very sincere about trying to find solutions for their pollution
problems.
Executive Session
Chairman Baise called the Board into executive session on
June 10, 1971« The session was open to members of the press.
The executive session was highlighted by the appearance of Ber-
tram T. Kanbara, Attorney General, State of Hawaii, who entered a
statement for the record. Mr. Kanbara'a statement, essentially a
rebuttal to Mr. Pico's testimony, denied that the State had surren^
dered the prerogative of proceeding with contested case administra-
tive proceedings or court action against the sugar industry if a
meaningful program of pollution control could not be obtained other-
wise. He questioned Mr. Pico's contention that a better arrangement
concerning the Tfr.maici.ia. mills implementation plan could have been
arrived at through the contested case and court action routes. Mr.
Kanbara stated further that compliance will be supervised and if
legal action is required to force compliance, legal action will be
brought. Mr. Kanbara said that Mr. Pico had never indicated the kind
of dissatisfaction he expressed to the Board.
He concluded by assuring the Board that his office will take
appropriate administrative and legal action for enforcement of water
pollution control standards.
Under questioning by the Board, Mr. Kanbara conceded that ade-
quate monitoring of the State's waters is difficult due to lack of
personnel in the State Health Department. Without such monitoring,
enforcement actions are hampered. !
Dr. Richard E. Marland, Interim Director, Office of Environmental
Quality Control, also entered a statement for the record pertaining
to a letter written by Dr. Doak C. Cox, ad Interim Director of the
Environmental Center, University of Hawaii, to Lt. Governor Ariyoshi.
In the June 3 letter, Dr. Cox restated the views he had ex-
pressed in a June 2 meeting with the Lt. Governor and representatives
from the sugar industry, state agencies, and the university community.
The subject of the meeting was the water quality control plans affec-
ting the Hilo-Hamakua coast sugar mills. Dr. Cox favored the 26-month
- 18 -
-------
proposal of the sugar industry for the stoppage of trash and
bagasse discharges into the ocean, rather than the implementation
of an interim solution proposed by the Department of Health which
would end the discharges in two to three months.
Dr. Cox stressed that the opinions he had expressed at the
meeting were necessarily his own, since no use had been made of
the Center as a mechanism for interdisciplinary consultation in
the dispute.
In closing his letter to Lt. Governor Ariyoshi, Dr. Cox said
he was chagrined that a hasty decision must be made about the mill
discharges without a thorough scientific appraisal of the alternative
plans.
In subsequent discussions with the Board, Dr. Marland said his
job is to stimulate improved environmental programs, but that his
Office of Environmental Quality Control has not been funded.
During the executive session the Board prepared a statement
incorporating its recommendations to the Governor of Hawaii and
the Administrator on improving the Hawaiian water pollution control
program. The statement was released during a press conference held
at the Sheraton-Vaikiki Hotel on June 11, 1971 • A copy of the
statement is attached to this report as Appendix A.
The Board also adopted unanimously the attached resolutions
(Appendix B).
Some of the discussion at the public hearing and subsequently
at the executive session focused on the agricultural pollution prob-
lem and the need for EPA support in this area. The Board is concerned
at the relative low priority assigned to these problems and has at
several previous meetings indicated its desire to consider the
agricultural pollution problem. This is presently being considered
as a possible area of investigation for the next Board meeting. The
possibility of a joint meeting of the Air and Water Advisory Boards
was also discussed.
The Board meeting was officially adjourned at 3:55 PM»
June 10, 1971.
Progress
Since the Board's visit to Hawaii, a number of actions have
been initiated, several as a direct result of the Board's recommenda-
tions : \
1. The State has started recruiting for the position of
Deputy Director of Health for Environmental Programs.
- 19 -
-------
2. EPA has scheduled an enforcement conference for Pearl
Harbor and environs for September 21, 22 and 23-
3. Action is proceeding under the 1899 Refuse Act to have
nine sugar mills establish the formal requirement and
the timetable for abatement of mill waste water discharge.
k- The City and County of Honolulu has proposed an ordinance
to: (a) collect sewer charges in order to recover capital
operation and maintenance costs for sewerage systems, and
(b) exclude untreatable wastes from the sewer system.
5« The City and County of Honolulu has proposed a general
ordinance to regulate grading and land clearing in order
to control sediment pollution.
6. The Governor has endorsed the Navy-Pearl Harbor Program,
and appointed a board of local, state and Federal officials
to oversee the development and implementation of an inter-
agency program.
7« Several citizen complaints have been filed with the U.S.
Attorney, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, State Health Depart-
ment and the State Attorney General by Life of the Land,
a conservation organization. The complaints are against
one subdivision, developer and sugar companies alleging
water pollution. As a result of the former, the State pro-
poses to adopt a procedure for implementing the sediment
control requirements of the water quality standards: (1)
Require development of an erosion control plan; (2) Require
approval of the plan by the State Department of Health;
and (3) Periodically inspect the site to insure that the
plan is implemented and that it is effective.
8. All State permits and all Corps of Engineer 1899 Act per-
mit applications have been reviewed by a State-Federal team.
An effort is being made to identify State permits for which
additional requirements (for either abatement actions, or
timetables) will be .required before a Federal permit can
be issued. Follow-up meetings planned to determine the best
means of placing the additional requirements into effect.
It is expected that the State will choose to incorporate
needed additions... The State is also revising the Water
Quality Standards Implementation Plan. It is expected
that specific goals and implementation schedules will be
developed for each pollution source covered by the plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Levin
Executive Secretary
- 20 -
-------
APPENDIX A
STATEMENT BY THE
PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADVISORY BOARD
STATE OP HAWAII
JUNE 1971
The Board appreciates the invitation from Governor Burns
to look at water pollution problems of the State of Hawaii and
is appreciative of the frank and full discussions it has had with
public officials and private citizens. Such an outpouring of cit-
izen interest and participation in our meeting is particularly
pleasing to the members of this Board. Only with public awareness
and involvement will these problems be solved.
The public demand for a cleaner environment must be met
through existing government structures. The State is the level
of government to which Congress has delegated the primary responsi-
bility for water pollution control. While Hawaii has model laws and
a model state organization, without the proliferation of agencies
found in many other states, the form is not necessarily the solu-
tion.
We are distressed that there is not enough emphasis in the
State Health Department on water pollution in an area where water
is the key concern. It is deplorable to find only part-time assign-
ment of e handful of people devoted to water pollution control. We
find this situation occurring in other states where a medically-
oriented water pollution control program unfortunately overlooks
other aspects of the public's concern. The Board would urge a more
effective deployment of personnel in order to have an overall effec-
tive environmental program and that it be made a full-time assign-
ment of a high level administrator who would give the program a
definite direction and emphasis.
The Board has visited and investigated other resort areas where
failure to recognize the pollution problems has destroyed or seriously
hampered the tourist industry. Many of the problems found in the
Galveston Bay, Miami, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands apply in the
Hawaiian situation. It is of concern to the Board that Oahu is
talking in terms of a ten-year time frame to meet problems which
need solutions immediately. The failure to employ user charges or
other cost recovery methods to speed up badly needed sewerage con-
struction would" be of concern to those businesses which are related
to tourism. This Board questions whether Oahu has ten years.
We recommend that the State of Hawaii and the City and County
of Honolulu assign the highest possible priority to construction of
suitable facilities to treat adequately its domestic wastes thereby
-------
preventing contamination of public waters widely used for public
recreation and other purposes. The President's Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board is firm in its conviction that water
pollution treatment facilities should have a higher priority than
many other projects, such as a new stadium and an addition to
City Hall.
The progress of the County of Maui is impressive as an ex-
ample of what can "be achieved by assigning proper priorities. The
residents of Maui should be complimented for their willingness to
move rapidly to prevent a water pollution problem from developing.
We are concerned about how little monitoring is being done
in heavily used recreation areas. The State owes it to the millions
of tourists and to its residents to have constant and adequate
monitoring not only for coliform but also for viruses and heavy
metals. This should be coupled with a willingness to publish the
data and interpretations thereof to assure all people that the waters
are safe.
The Board also understands that there is to be a great deal
of monitoring information which will be submitted by the State's
permit applicants. Such information should form the core of the
State's data system. Steps should be taken to assure that these
data are both accurate and reliable by controlling the methods of
collection, handling, analyses, and reporting.
The Board did not get expert testimony on the condition of
the Hawaiian sea floor except for Kaneohe Bay. Destruction of coral
by sewage and siltation (which was graphically demonstrated by movies
and slides) recalled to Board members evidence which it had received
about the "dead sea" areas off Newark, Hew Jersey and New York, New
York where man has fouled the oceans almost beyond belief. Sediment
runoff from the islands, both natural and manmade, obviously is in-
creasing despite Hawaii's model land use laws which are superior to
those the Board has seen.
Testimony from the construction industry and from Federal gov-
ernment representatives indicate strongly that not enough considera-
tion is being given to damage done to the sea floor by sediment from
housing, highway, an other construction. Visual evidence, including
red-white caps off the Hamakua Coast, indicates that sedimentation
needs a great deal more control. While the Board received no state-
ment from the Soil Conservation Service, it is obvious that this
agency's expertise should be consulted more frequently where the sea
floor is endangered. The Board has seen other areas such as the
Virgin Islands where marine life has been destroyed for miles offshore
by sediment and sewage.
- 2 -
-------
We recommend that agricultural runoff effluents in Hawaii
which deposit sediment, chemicals, and other materials in public
waters be recycled, lagooned, or treated in order that the adverse
effects will be minimized.
The way in which one pollution solution often creates another
problem may be demonstrated in the case of the Kahuku Sugar Com-!
pany. The Board was told that a large tract of agricultural land
will be proposed for rezoning for housing. Creation of a new bed-
room community may result in 6vererowding of the transportation
corridor and eventually in the displacement or exclusion of other
uses presently found in this corridor. This situation illustrates
that comprehensive land use planning would be of value.
In 1963 the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
met in Hawaii. At that time, the Board was assured by the sugar
industry that an effective program was being developed to cope with
water pollution problems. This visit in 1971 reveals a disappointing
lack of progress. The Board, however, was heartened to hear of the
new plans worked out by the Governor and the industry. But, in
view of the past record and controversial testimony at the public
meeting, the Board urges the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to give full and careful evaluation to these proposals
prior to the issuance of any permits under the provisions of the
1899 Refuse Act. The program must be outlined in a written schedule
with a specific program for implementation to meet water quality
standards. The provisions of this schedule must be enforceable une
der either applicable State law or the Refuse Act since further
delay would not be in the public interest.
The Board recognizes that EPA was established by the President
with the responsibility and authority to provide leadership within
the Federal government on problems of environmental pollution con-
trol. Accordingly, the Board recommends to the Administrator that the
agency pursue a vigorous and active role in negotiating with both the
social and natural resource agencies to insure that their programs be
fashioned to provide for environmental protection and enhancement.
In this context, the Board recommends that the Administrator
exert his influence to insure that sedimentation, pollution or b'ther
deterioration of the nation's waters including those in Hawaii be
prevented. The Board finds that the programs of Federal agencies
reach into all facets of the environment. Programs such as highway
and airport construction, housing and urban development, harbor
development, many agricultural practices, and the leasing of Federal
lands and facilities lend themselves to the management and control
of environmental pollution problems in accordance with the mandate
of the National. Environmental Policy Act.
- 3 -
-------
The Board was favorably impressed "by the action program pre-
sented by the Navy for restoration of Pearl Harbor. To allow
this national shrine to be used as a cesspool would be like using
the Grand Canyon to dispose of old cars and solid wastes from the
Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Administrator is urged to con-
tinue to do everything possible to encourage the appropriation of
funds being requested by the Armyi Navy and the Air Force for the
Pearl Harbor restoration program.
Specifically, the Board recommends that the Navy seek appro-
priations for dockside receiving facilities for sewage from ships
tied up in Pearl Harbor.
The Hawaiian situation exemplifies a gap in the existing law.
The Board endorses pending legislation which would provide for
Federal enforcement where States fail to live up to their obliga-
tion. If such legislation should fail, and if the State of Hawaii
has failed to require implementation schedules which would achieve
the approved water quality standards, it is recommended that the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency consider seeking
relief in the courts to gain compliance on grounds of breached con-
tracts involving Federal grantsi
The Board further finds that the Administrator needs to pro-
vide for protection of the public investment under Section 7 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended. The Administrator
should establish at an early date a procedure in compliance with the
Act to provide for denial of state program grant funds where the
purposes of the Act are not being met. Program grants made under
authority of Section 7 are the key to control of construction grants
given to the States. With increased Federal involvement in this
latter area, it is imperative that the purposes of the Act, protec-
tion and enhancement of water quality, be accomplished as a result
of Federal expenditure.
-------
APPENDIX B
RBSOLUTIOH NO. 1
ELECTRIC POWER SITIMG
WHEREAS, the Nation's needs for additional eleotrio power axe
continually mounting as a result of increasing ^emaHs from larger
numbers of people; and
WHEREAS, those needs must be met with the least possible
adverse impacts upon the natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the construction and operation of power generating
facilities frequently cause significant environmental problems,
including the pollution of water;
NOW, THEREFORE, BK IT RESOLVED that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board, in regular session assembled June 10, 1971*
in the State of Hawaii, hereby expresses its approval of the following
principles of new legislation currently before the Congress: 1. that
electric utilities prepare and publish general plans for the expansion
of their systems at least ten years in advance of construction; 2. that
each region or State should be authorized to establish decision-making
bodies to review alternatives which may assure that suitable features
to protect the environment will be adopted in the siting of eleotrio
power plants and attendant facilities, such as transmission lines;
3. that, in the absence of the establishment of regional or State
decision-making bodies, operating with Ifederal guidelines, the federal
Government should assume the review and approval responsibility;
k* that proposed power plant sites and general locations of transmission
lines be disclosed at least five years prior to construction with public
hearings being conducted; and 5* that applications for construction
of plants and transmission lines be required to be filed at least two
years in advance with opportunities again given for public comments.
-------
RESOLUTION KO. 2
MARCTE PROTECTION ACT OF 1971
WHEREAS , the Council on Environmental Quality has found that
a broad range of waste material is being dumped into the oceans,
into coastal waters, and into estuarine areas; and
WHEREAS, the non-regulated dumping of these materials often
endangers human health, welfare and the amenities, as well as
ecological systems and the marine environment and pose hazards
to economic potentialities ; and
WHEREAS, in many cases, feasible and economic land-based
disposal methods are available as alternative sites for wastes
currently being dumped in the oceans;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board, in regular session assembled
June 10, 1971> in the State of Hawaii, hereby expresses its urgent
concern about the widespread use of oceanic areas for waste disposal
and agrees with these principles in the proposed "Marine Protection
Act of 1971": 1. that dumping into the oceans, coastal waters and
Great Lakes should be prohibited except as authorized by permits issued
by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; 2. that
the Administrator should be authorized to prohibit the transportation
of material from the U.S. for the purpose of dumping it in the oceans,
coastal, and other waters; 3« that the Administrator should be
authorized to prohibit ocean dumping of certain types of materials and
to designate recommended safe sites for disposal of other materials;
and k> that no permit should be issued for the dumping of material
which would violate applicable water quality standards; and
BE IT JJWL'JdJfiH RESOLVED that this Board also believes that the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should be
authorized to encourage research and development of recycling
methods which would result in significant reductions in the amount
of wastes which are being disposed of both through oceanic and
land-based sites.
-------
RESOLUTION HO. ^
FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDES CONTROL ACT
WHEREAS, chemical pesticides pose major threats to the
environment, including the Nation's water resources; and
WHEREAS, it is both necessary and desirable that additional
controls be placed upon the distribution and use of pesticides
because of the environmental hazards involved; and
WHEREAS, the current methods of regulating pesticides are
cumbersome, inadequate, or non-existent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Advisory Board, in regular session assembled
June 10, 1971, in the State of Hawaii, hereby expresses its firm
conviction that the proposed Federal Environmental Pesticides
Control Act of 1971 should be adopted; and
BE IT Jj'UiCi'HKH RESOLVED that this Board hereby expresses its
agreement with these primary principles:
1. that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, when registering a pesticide, must be required
to consider all of the environmental effects which may
be involved;
2. that he classify pesticides, upon registration, in these
categories: (a.) for general use; (b.) for restricted use;
and (c.) for use by permit only;
3. that pesticides designated as being appropriate only under
conditions of restricted use could be used only by, or under
the general supervision of, approved pesticide applicators;
1+. that pesticides classified for use by permit only could
be applied or made available for application only with
the approval of pesticide management consultants; and
5. that the Administrator should be authorized to stop the
sale of pesticides if he believes it is in violation with
provisions of the Act.
-------
RESOLUTION BO.' ii
WATER POLLUTION FROMASRICTLTDBAL SPIffiCES
WHEREAS, siltation resulting from the runoff from fields
results in sedimentation of dams, magnifies problems relating
to purification of water resources fox domestic and industrial
use and aquatic organisms and damages their feeding and spawning
areas; and
WHEREAS, uric acid, nitrogen, and. nitrates and phosphates
running off into streams supersaturate them with fertilizers and
make oxygen requirements which kill aquatic resources; and
WHEREAS, such toxicants as rodentjaides, pesticides,
fungicides and weedicides contaminate water resources for a
wide range of beneficial uses; and
WHEREAS, organic fertilizers such as nitrogen, phosphates and
ammonia draining from agricultural lands result in widespread
fish kill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board, in regular session assembled June 10, 1971*
in the State of Hawaii, hereby recommends that the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency work in the closest possible
manner with Administrators of agencies dealing with agricultural
programs which will result in the reduction of water pollution
resulting from the runoff of water from agricultural lands.
-------
RESOLUTION NO. 5
INTERNATIONAL WATER POLLUTION
WHEREAS, there is ample evidence that the use of environmental
contaminants by one Nation affects wildlife and other resources of
other Nations; and
WHEREAS, industries regulated by strict controls on water and
air pollution in the United States are at a disadvantage in competing
with industries in diner Nations which do not observe or require the
same standards of environmental quality; and
WHEREAS, the dumping of industrial wastes, domestic sewage,
and solid wastes into the seas or rivers entering the seas adversely
affects other countries;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Advisory Board, in regular session assembled June 10, 1971,
in the State of Hawaii, hereby urgently requests that the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency exercise the prerogative of
his office in the most vigorous way to encourage the U.S. representatives
to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, to be held
in June, 1972, in Stockholm, Sweden, in the "one-world" context to
seek worldwide controls on pollution which will result in a clearer,
safer, and more pleasant environment without competitive trade
disadvantages to any Nation.
------- |